Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Does a surface such that any two different triangles on it are not congruent exist?

Added:Suppose that surfaces are defined by some continuous function:$R^2\rightarrow R$ and a triangle is a set of three non collinear points connected by three geodesics.

share|improve this question
2  
That is, a metric space such that the map $(A,B,C)\mapsto (d(A,B),d(B,C),d(C,A))$ is injective? Then especially there cannot be an isosceles triangle. –  Hagen von Eitzen Jan 6 '13 at 12:51
2  
If your only limitation is metric spaces, then something like the powers of two on the real line would do the trick. Then even the function $(A, B) \mapsto d(A, B)$ is injective. –  Arthur Jan 6 '13 at 13:25
    
Thank you! I had assumed a surface to be defined by some continuous function:$R^2\rightarrow R$. –  user53216 Jan 6 '13 at 13:57
3  
@user Please edit the question to make it precise: what is a surface, what is a triangle and what metric do you put on it. –  user53153 Jan 6 '13 at 15:21

1 Answer 1

Assuming by "surface" you mean a graph $\Gamma_f=\{(x_1,x_2,f(x_1,x_2))|\;x_1,x_2\in\mathbb R\}$ of a function $f:\mathbb R^2\to\mathbb R$, as you mention in the comments, and assuming by "different triangles on it are not congruent" you mean what Hagen von Eitzen says in the comments (i.e. that the function $\Phi$ we will define below is injective; edit: this in particular means that triangle should be interpreted as three point metric space, which might be a bit non-standard), the answer is negative.

The reason is as follows: we define the function $\Phi:\mathbb R^6\to\mathbb R^3$ (as suggested by Hagen von Eitzen in the comments) by $$\Phi(X,Y,Z)=(d(F(X),F(Y)),d(F(X),F(Z)),d(F(Y),F(Z))),$$ where $X,Y,Z\in\mathbb R^2$ and $F:\mathbb R^2\to \Gamma_f$ is the homeomorphism $(x,y)\to(x,y,f(x,y))$ (and we identify $\mathbb R^6$ with $\mathbb R^2\times\mathbb R^2\times\mathbb R^2$).

The problem is that $\Phi$ is a continuous function, but a continuous injection $\mathbb R^6\to\mathbb R^3$ cannot exist. This is because such an injection would in particular have to map $$S^5 =\{(x,y,z,u,v,w)\in\mathbb R^6|\;x^2+y^2+z^2+u^2+v^2+w^2=1\}$$ continuously and injectively into $\mathbb R^3$, and thus into $\mathbb R^5$. This would contradict the Borsuk-Ulam theorem.

Added: If by surface you mean $2$-manifold, the same argument works (and the answer is again negative): let $M$ be the $2$-manifold in question. (We assume that there is a metric given on $M$.) Then an arbitrary point in its interior has a neighborhood $U$ homeomorphic to $\mathbb R^2$. This homeomorphism $h:U\to\mathbb R^2$ allows us to define a metric $d_U$ on $\mathbb R^2$ by $d_U(h(p),h(q))=d(p,q)$, where $p,q\in U$ (and $d$ is the metric on $M$). Now define $\Phi:\mathbb R^6\to\mathbb R^3$ analogously to the definition above, i.e. $$\Phi(X,Y,Z)=(d_U(X,Y),d_U(X,Z),d_U(Y,Z)).$$ This is again continuous, and thus cannot be injective by Borsuk-Ulam.

share|improve this answer
1  
It seems like you are taking "congruence of triangles" to mean congruence of triangles in the ambient Euclidean space. I thought the question was asking about geodesic triangles. In the latter case there isn't an "SSS" rule for congruence, is there? –  user29743 Jan 6 '13 at 20:12
    
@countinghaus: actually, I was interpreting "triangle" as a three point metric subspace. (Which I thought made sense, but I see it might be a non-standard use of the word.) The metric on $M$ is completely arbitrary, as long as it induces the correct topology. I agree that the question about geodesic triangles is a very interesting one. –  Dejan Govc Jan 6 '13 at 20:23
    
Thank you!! : > –  user53216 Jan 8 '13 at 12:12

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.